This has been noted before if the Supremes actually follow the record, they will have a tough time overturning Walker’s finding:

…to Walker’s surprise, after lawyers for same-sex couples put on a parade of witnesses, gay marriage foes put on scant evidence, offering just two witnesses, including one who later came out in favor of same-sex marriage rights. “I did think the proponents of Proposition 8 would put on a case,” Walker said.

“It never occurred to me that they would … ,” and his trademark baritone trails off. Walker asks for the correct baseball term for taking a swing and a miss at a pitch and then just shrugs.

Years of legal precedent dictate that “the record” is the primary factor in determining whether a decision below is affirmed or reversed.

To reverse on this record would really require a Justice to go out of their way to actively flout how courts are supposed to work, a real bit of judicial activism.

10 Responses
to “This could only be a “job” for Judicial Activism”

Because equal rights of all kinds means a lot to me, I would do everything in my power to keep a case involving equal rights of members of the GLBT community out of the hands of the current Supreme Court. I don’t see how anything good for them will come of this.

Attaturk, this Court has no problem whatsoever overturning years–nay, decades–of legal precedent and case law (to say nothing of sanity itself) if it suits their purpose. Citizens United is a prime example.

I find it hard not to consider this bunch to be a rogue Supreme Court, in the same way that Bush-Cheney were essentially a rogue Administration–and for the same reason: they are partisan to the point of treason. In a better world, we would impeach the whole bunch and undo all their cases. If they mess with gay marriage, we really must impeach them.

Good morning, pups. Today we have Brooks, Cohen and Krugman. In “The D.C. Dubstep” Bobo says politicians in both parties are dancing as though they’re secretly in love with sequestration, a total disaster for the country. In “Finding the Missing Word” Mr. Cohen says an ancient clay cylinder smaller than an American football journeys to the United States with a message of tolerance. Prof. Krugman, in “Sequester of Fools!”, says here we go again! That terrible fiscal crisis we were warned about two years ago is just around the corner. Is anyone interested?

The coffee, tea and hot chocolate are ready, and I’ve got waffles with warm maple syrup. I’m feeling a bit “off” today, so I’m shuffling off to the kitchen for more tea and then probably to subside on the couch with a book. Have a great day.

Thanks, attaturk, no doubt the opponents of gay marriage wanted a decision that would go on to the coathanger court, for overturning. The wingnuts are well aware their dream court is on the bench, and anything that gets to them is toast if it’s public interest. Not so much rogue as criminal.

While it is meet and proper to be concerned about the current bunch on the Supreme Court, I think that at this point the momentum of history is such that even these knuckleheads will see their way clear to affirming Judge Walker’s decision below. It might be on yet another snappy 5-4 decision, but I think it will more likely be 6-3 or even 7-2.

I see the minority avoiding actual engagement with or analysis of the opinion below, ruminating instead on how this is hardly a fit subject for the Court to weigh in on, with appropriate harrumphs and tsks.